Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/26/1981Board Present: Board Absent Staff Present 0 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1981 Barbara Purvis, Dave Gilfillan, Dennis Georg, Gary Ross, Ed Stoner, Tim Dow, Don Crews Ingrid Simpson Curt Smith, Ken Waido, Joe Frank, Cathy Chianese, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Mauri Rupel, Linda Gula Legal Representative: Pete Ruggiero Called to order at 6:30 p.m. Agenda Review: Item #3 Sunchase PUD and Item #4 Springcreek Manor PUD were taken off the Consent Agenda for further discussion. Stoner: Moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 1 and 2. 1. Approval of minutes of September 28, 1981 2. Cottonwood PUD - Final Gilfillan: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. 3. #33-79C Sunchase PUD (Amendment to Les Chatelets PUD - Final) Request for final approval of an amended plan for 105 multi -family units and a 22-unit elderly housing project located west of Taft Hill Road on Orchard Place and Plum Street, zoned R-M-P, Medium Density Planned Residential. Applicant: Shade Tree Ventures & Fort Collins Housing Authority, c/o ZVFK Architect/Planners, 218 W. Mountain, Ft. Collins, CO 80521 Patricia Hoffman: Expressed concerns about the landscaping planned for the NE corner. Stated that they were pleased with the changes made. Wanted to make sure that those plans that showed no windows on the north side were definite. Georg: Moved to approve Sunchase PUD Final. Stoner: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. Planning & Zoning Page 2 10/26/81 Board utes • 4. #143-80B Ross: GiIfi1lan: Purvis: Springcreek Manor PUD - Final Request for final approval of an 8.1-acre residential PUD with 98 multi -family units, located west of Shields Street and south of Spring Creek Shopping Center, zoned R-P, Planned Residential. Applicant: Harold Miller, c/o Robb & Brenner, Inc., P.O. Box 251, Fort Collins, CO 80522. Explained that Tim Dow had a conflict of interest on this item and would not be participating in the discussion or vote. Moved to approve Springcreek Manor PUD - Final. Second. Vote: Motion carried 6-0. (Dow not voting.) Ross: Introduced three Resolutions for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board commending Chuck Mabry, Alan Apt, and Carolyn Haase for service to the Planning and Zoning Board. (See Attachments A,B,C.) Stoner: Moved for approval of the Resolutions. Georg: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. 5. R-H/R-M Conversion Criteria In July 1981, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed a draft proposal of procedures for reviewing multi -family residential projects in the existing R-H and R-M zoning districts. Staff has prepared a specific proposal for discussion by the Board. Chianese: Gave a staff presentation summarizing the report. Ross: Raised questions concerning the notification process for adjacent property owners. Stoner: Expressed opposition to the proposal because it would put an undue burden on a small builder or renovator. Felt that anything four units or less; or as long as the exterior of the building was not being changed, they should not have to go through the process. Georg: Stated that there are two burdens ---the burden on the developer and with a conversion from a single-family residence to tri-plex or more, there is a burden on the neighborhood. Felt that we do owe the citizens of Ft. Collins an opportunity to review that type of conversion. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes • Page 3 10/26/81 Bob Komives: 324 East Plum. Expressed strong support for the proposal. Felt that this proposal was very compatible with master planning and the concept of going toward a Core -Area plan. Discussed the economic value of the plan. Ed Keasling: 516 Stover. Expressed support for the plan. Raised concerns for low income housing and stated that the review process would help to keep that in mind. Gilfillan: Stated that this could be looked at as somewhat of a tool that provides existing ownership or potential new ownership a review process for the conversion. Expressed support for the draft. Crews: Stated that if we are to improve or maintain the quality of the core area dwellings, this is a good step in that direction. Stoner: Stated that this would be inflationary and that it would be detrimental to the community. Ross: Questioned how this proposal would work in situations where large houses were converted into boarding houses. Smith: Stated that boarding houses would be regulated under different aspects of the code and only allowed in specific zones. Stated that in the R-H zone it is considered a residential use. This question had not been recognized and would perhaps need further consideration. Jim Wood: 307 So. Sherwood. Stated that in working with the Core -Area Plan the entire R-H zone must be looked at. Felt that the conversion process is positive. Stated that with the new tax credits and very favorable new depreciation provisions in the 1981 Tax Act that small conversions can still be economically viable. Georg: Moved to recommend to City Council the adoption of the R-H/R-M Conversion Criteria as specified in the draft. Recommended that we further review the R-H zone in terms of uses by right at a work session. Gilfillan: Second. Vote: Motion carried 6-1 (Stoner voting no.) 6. Foothills Policy In June 1981, the Planning and Zoning Board asked the staff to re-evaluate the City's present Foothills policy in relation to the western boundary of the Urban Growth Area. Staff has prepared three policy alternatives for the Board to discuss, one of which, when adopted, would present a solid City policy for the Foothills area. Waido: Gave a brief outline of the staff report. Announced that a work session was planned for November 12, for the P & Z Board and the County Planning Commission to discuss this item. Planning & Zoning Board loutes • Page 4 10/26/81 Alvin Miller: 4017 Spruce Drive. Read a statement into the record. (See Attachment D.) Les Kaplan: Planning Consultant. Discussed in detail his previous request for four propertyowners owning 400 acres west of Overland Trail. Discussed the rural designation and open space designations. Felt that more analysis needed to go into the rural designation and urged the Board to get more information to determine what would be reasonable for this piece of land. Jerry Nix: Mountain States Properties. Discussed rural zoning outside of the Urban Growth Area. Discussed briefly utility studies, vista studies, park dedications, and possible condemnation of lands. Felt that this item should be tabled and come back with additional information. Note: General discussion ensued between Board members concerning policies; land uses; possible precedents in condemnation proceedings; and justifications for expansion. Georg: Moved to table further discussion of the Foothills Policy until the November 23 meeting. Stoner: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. 7. #83-81 Miller Land Use Plan Amendment - County Referral A request to amend Larimer County's Land Use Plan for property located west of Overland Trail, south of Prospect Street. Applicant: Alvin Miller, 4017 Spruce Drive, Ft. Collins, CO 80526. Stoner: Moved to table this item until January, 1982. Georg: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. 8. #80-81A Olinger 1/6 Contiguity Waiver Request - County Referral A request to waive the 1/6th contiguity requirement for development in the Urban Growth Area for property located south of Trilby Road, west of Shields Street. Applicant: Debra Olinger, c/o Douglas Konkel, 1405 S. College Avenue, Ft. Collins, CO 80524. Albertson -Clark: Gave a staff report recommending denial. Planning & Zoning Board t utes • Page 5 10/26/81 Doug Konkel: Lawyer representing the applicant. Gave a brief history of the site. Stated that because of the supplementary regulations to the Larimer County Comprehensive Plan and the regulation which states that all new development have a 1/6 contiguity to existing development was the only reason for being at this meeting. Note: General discussion followed concerning sewer tie-ins, possible annexation, and problems with adjoining propertyowners. Smith: Stated that this kind of use going through the PUD Ordinance would be next to impossible to get a staff recommendation for approval. Stated that if the Board felt that the type of facility makes sense on this property the best alternative is to have it develop in the County and leave it in the County. If they were to redevelop, they would then come back in front of the Urban Growth Area program; they would have to, at that point, annex because they would then be eligible, and would be faced with all of the present regulations. Gilfillan: Moved to recommend approval to Larimer County Planning Commission of the waiver under the special review process for the 1/6 congiguity. Dow: Second. Vote: Motion carried 4-3. (Georg, Stoner, Crews voting no.) 9. #84-81 South Mason Company Rezoning - County Referral A request to rezone 1.5-acres from 0-Open to I -Industrial, located south of Collinsaire Mobile Home Park, on Summitview Drive. Applicant: South Mason Company, 301 N. Summitview, Fort Collins, CO 80524. Albertson -Clark: Gave a staff report recommending approval subject to all Urban Growth Area application criteria being met and that the site be developed as a PUD, Applicant: Not present. Stoner: Moved to recommend approval to the Larimer County Planning Commission for South Mason Company Rezoning subject to all Urban Growth Area application criteria being met and that the site be developed as a PUD. Georg: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. 10. #148-78A Amendment to Scotch Pines PUD Request for approval of a self-service gas station located at Scotch Pines Village on the southwest corner of Drake and Lemay, zoned B-P, Planned Business. Applicant: Mitchell & Company, c/o Robb & Brenner Architects/Planners, Savings Building, Suite 1080, Ft. Collins, CO 80521. Chianese: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Planning & Zoning Board Outes Page 6 10/26/81 Ross: Questioned potential drainage problems and the possibility of a gasoline spill. Rupel: Stated that it was a justified concern but there should not be that kind of problem with drainage. Bill Brenner: Robb & Brenner Architects. Addressed the question of drainage and sewage problems and explained the landscaping for the area. Felt that the project had some advantages for the City. Note: Discussion between Board members followed concerning the proximity of other gas station facilities, elevations, parking space requirements, traffic patterns, and noise problems. Ray Sullivan Greg Penfold Mark Pastor: Tenent of the office building. Expressed opposition to the the project. Felt that the added traffic congestion would be a major problem. Employee of the office building. Favored the project because of the convenience. 1001 Strachan. Favored the station because of the convenience and it blends well with the area. Stoner: Stated his major concern as being the people who are being infringed upon in the office building, other than that he had no problems with the project. Moved to approve the Amendment to Scotch Pines PUD. Dow: Second. Vote: Motion carried 6-1. (Gilfillan voting no.) 11. #79-81 VKR PUD - Preliminary Preliminary approval of a 19,200 sf office and residential three-plex on 0.94-acres, located at the northwest corner of Remington and Stuart Streets, zoned R-M, Medium Density Residential. Applicant: Kurt Reed, c/o KDR, Inc., 215 W. Oak, Suite 720, Ft. Collins, CO 80521. Ross: Announced that Ed Stoner had a conflict of interest and would not be participating in the discussion or vote. Frank: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Reid Rosenthal: Discussed the rendering and also stated that all adjacent property - owners had been notified and a meeting had been held with them. Discussed the access to the corner lot. Planning & Zoning Board M' utes • Page 7 10/26/81 Georg: Moved to approve VKR PUD - Preliminary Crews: Second. Vote: Motion carried 6-0. (Stoner conflict of interest.) #169-78A University Mall PUD - Preliminary Request for preliminary approval of an additional 277,000 sf of rest- aurant, retail, office and parking garage, located at Century Mall on the west side of College Avenue, zoned H-B, Highway Business. Applicant: Joe Clancy, c/o ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 W. Mountain, Ft. Collins, CO 80521 and John Stoddard, c/o RPR Bros., 880 Cherry Street, Suite 803, Denver, CO 80220. Frank: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Joe Clancy: Applicant. Stated that they are attempting the highest and best use for the site. Pointed out that the tenents of the mall are for the new development. Eldon Ward: ZVFK. Addressed the planned curbcuts and accessing, traffic, land- scaping, and potential water retention problems. Bob Miller: 116 E. Harvard. Expressed concerns about the increased population into the area and the resulting traffic problems, pollution problems, danger to pedestrians, and the obstruction of the view to the mountains. Alta Mecham: 112 Yale Avenue. Expressed concerns about the height of buildings effecting the view; property values being lowered; traffic controls; and sewage problems. Lloyd McLaughlin: M & I Engineering. Explained the existing sewer system and the planned tie-ins for the future. Bob Whitney: 115 E. Harvard. Concerned about vehicular access to the mall. Also concerned about pedestrian access to the mall. L. J. Brenneman: 109 Columbia Rd. Objected to the 20' setbacks on the buildings. Georg: Questioned what recourse the City had that would motivate Montgomery Wards to become more positive about their participation in this endeavor. Smith: Stated that a variety of measures could be used. Stated that they have had communication with Montgomery Wards and that they have basically agreed to pursue a similar treatment . Stoner: Raised Doints concerninq_the parkinq garage and elimination of parking spaces. Felt that with the two restaurants and the movie complex, there could be times when parking could be a problem. Plwning & Zoning Board Motes • Page 8 10/26/81 Ed Zdenek: ZVFK. Commented that they are involved in the interior renovation of the Mall and that some of these problems will be solved in connection with the renovation process. Ross: Commented that denying or approving this project is not going to make a great impact on the traffic on College Avenue ---to renovate and improve the Mall might increase some of the congestion of getting in and out of the location but the overall traffic flow on College is not going to change very much. Stoner: Commented that the renovation and landscaping will help the value of the frontages of the South College Heights properties. Felt that this is the highest and best use of the land. Moved to approve University Mall PUD - Preliminary. Purvis: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. 13. #78-81 Cimarron Plaza PUD - Preliminary Request for preliminary approval of a gas station and 22,000 sf business services and offices on 5.85-acres, located at the southwest corner of Shields Street and Drake Road, zoned R-P, Planned Residential. Applicant: Blue "0" Development, c/o Gefroh Associates, 555 S. Howes, Suite 100, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Frank: Gave a staff report recommending approval. John Dengler: Gefroh Associates. Presented a model of the project.Explained the problems involved in trying to incorporate a mixed use project. Answered questions concerning the station size, the location of the site and ownership intentions. Explained that when this project goes as a final it would have to go in conjunction with an amendment. Smith: Explained that a single gas station would not have met the criteria of the LDGS but by expanding to include the other four buildings the criteria would be met of incorporating those types of uses into larger scale project Georg: Commented that the Board seems to be seeing many amendments.Stated that what is seen is phase one approval and then three subsequent amendments to the PUD for plans that have nothing to do with the initial gas station Smith: Stated that the change in economic conditions will effect the developments that have been approved in the last 2-3 years. Stated that the Board will probably be seeing more and more amendments to projects in the future. Ross: Felt that the process is defendable. A reasonable plan needs to be worked out knowing that it may be over a period of 2-3 years for some smaller projects to be done. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes Page 9 • • 10/26/81 Georg: Felt that the Board could require that the peripheral landscaping, at least as it borders on the streets, be completed as part of this phase. Rupel: Stated that in the plans submitted that the curbs would not meet City standards. Stated that Engineering had agreed to look at the plans one more time before the final. Dow: Expressed concern for the overall system and the approach that the Board would use. Felt that the problem should be addressed with staff at some point in the future. Stoner: Moved to approve Cimarron Plaza PUD - Preliminary. Gilfillan: Second. Vote: Motion carried 5-2. (Georg, Crews voting no.) Georg: Commented that he felt more should be required on a first phase. 14. #76-81 Pineview PUD Master Plan Request for master plan approval of 624 multi -family units and 16.5 acre neighborhood service center on 67-acres, located at the northwest corner of Shields Street and Harmony Road, zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential. Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan, Planning Consultant, c/o Gefroh Associates, 555 S. Howes, Suite 100, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Frank: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Gilfillan: Questioned the status of the irrigation ditch. Les Kaplan: Applicant. Stated that they had a letter from the ditch company which indicated support of the proposed realignment of the ditch contingent upon their being able to review the final engineering on how it would be relocated. Mrs. Richardson: Area resident. Objected to the density proposed. Expressed concern about the street improvement costs. Note: General discussion ensued concerning present irrigation of land, timing of phases, and future plans for Harmony Road. Georg: Moved to approve the Pineview PUD Master Plan. Crews: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. 15. #76-81A Pineview PUD First Phase - Preliminary Request for preliminary approval of 326 multi -family units on 27-acres located at the northwest corner of Shields Street and Harmony Road, zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential. Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan, Planning Consultant, c/o Gefroh Associates, 555 S. Howes, Suite 100, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Planning & Zoning Board tes Page 10 10/26/81 Frank: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Ross: Expressed interest in the landscaping treatment. Kaplan: Stated that they intend to make use of the confier trees that are presently on the property. Stated that a theme for the project is being established. Explained that there would be extensive berming along Harmony Road and Shields Street. Pointed out that as part of the first phase they have agreed to improve Shields Street between 500-600 feet north of the first phase all the way to the north extent of the improvements for the Woodlands PUD. Note: Discussion followed concerning criteria and points given. Stoner: Moved to approve Pineview PUD First Phase - Preliminary. Dow: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. Meeting adjourned 11:35 p.m. Note: This is a summary of the minutes for the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. Tapes of the meeting are available to the public. Upon request copies of the tapes can be made. PTanning & Zoning Board Notes • Page 11 10/26/81 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD WORK SESSIONS Date: October 16, 1981 Time: 12:00 Noon Place: CIC Room - New City Hall Agenda: Work Session to discuss changes in the LOGS Board Present: Dennis Georg, Dave Gilfillan, Barbara Purvis, Tim Dow, Don Crews Board Absent: Ingrid Simpson Date: October 23, 1981 Time: 12:00 Noon Place: CIC Room - New City Hall Agenda: Work Session for regular P & Board Present: Dennis Georg, Dave Gilfillan, .Tim Dow, Don Crews Board Absent: Ingrid Simpson Ed Stoner, Gary Ross, Z meeting of October 26, 1981 Barbara Purvis, Ed Stoner, Gary Ross, 0 ATTACHMENT A • RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMENDING CHUCK MABRY FOR HIS SERVICE AS DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Chuck Mabry served as Director of Planning and Development from June 19, 1978, to October 2, 1981; and WHEREAS, during his tenure as Director of Planning and Development, Chuck's insight and expertise was a contributing factor to the development of many of the City of Fort Collins' long-range planning programs, such as The Land Use Policies Plan, The Cost of Development Study, and The Land Development Guidance System; and WHEREAS, Chuck was always available to members of the Planning and Zoning Board for open and frank discussions concerning the policy direction for the City of Fort Collins; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that Chuck Mabry be formally commended for his dedication and service as Director of the Department of Planning and Development. Passed and adopted at the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort Collins held this 26th day of October, A.D. 1981. Gary Ross, Chairman ATTACHMENT B RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMENDING ALAN APT FOR HIS SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD WHEREAS, Alan Apt served as a member of the Planning and Zoning Board from November 18, 1980, to October 6, 1981; and WHEREAS, during his membership on the Planning and Zoning Board, Alan Apt insight and expertise was a contributing factor in enabling the City of Fort Collins to plan for its future; and WHEREAS, during his membership on the Planning and Zoning Board, Alan Apt provided insight to many of the key policy issues facing the Board; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that Alan Apt be formally commended for his dedication and service as a member of the Planning and Zoning Board. Passed and adopted at the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Boar of the City of Fort Collins held this 26th day of October, A.D. 1981. D. ,-4 , Gary ss, rmafi ATTACHMENT C RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMENDING CAROLYN HAASE FOR HER SERVICE AS A MEMBER AND VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD WHEREAS, Carolyn Haase served as a member of the Planning and Zoning Board from July 17, 1979, to September 28, 1981, and as vice chairman of the Planning and Zoning Board from September, 1980, to September, 1981; and WHEREAS, during her membership on the Planning and Zoning Board, Carolyn Haase's insight and expertise was a contributing factor in enabling the City of Fort Collins to plan for its future; and WHEREAS, during her membership on the Planning and Zoning Board, Carolyn Haase contributed to the development of the City of Fort Collins' Land Development Guidance System and other long-range planning projects; and WHEREAS, as vice chairman of the Planning and Zoning Board, Carolyn Haase organized an excellent orientation program for new Board members; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that Carolyn Haase be formally commended for her dedication and service as a member of the Planning and Zoning Board. Passed and adopted at the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort Collins held this 26th day of October, A.D. 1981. Gar ss, ai man ATTACHMENT D • TO HE READ AT THE CITY PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 26, 1961 The Foothills Policy was developed about ten years ago under Don Reynolds, City Planner. It was an emotional issue then and zpparently still remains so. We had been promised the right to develop eighty acres of ground West of Overland Trail by the City Council in Office in 1970. The following City Councilunder the persuasion of the Reynolds group decided that any further development'West of Overland Trail should cease. Thence the Foothills Policy, which should have been namedthe Overland Trail Policy, because it did not deal with the Foothills as such. During the City adoption of the Foothills Policy there was much ambiguous rhetoric and false statements brought to bear to the extent that it was difficult for many to know what the true facts were. For example: The City and Reynolds group stated that any further development would seriously pollute the Foothills. This statement is so ludicrous that it hardly deserves further remarks. We have lived up on that hill for eight yearns and we know whereof we speak&. Secondly the area was too unstable to build on because of the Shale out— cropping. We subsequently built three all masonary homms in the area and, what do you know, they are still standing. If there is any kind of house you shouldn't build on expansive soil, it is all masonary, but I built my home directly unothis�hale and I am pleased to report that it is doing well. Thirdly, there much said about the visual impact. Nobody took time however to determine at what level the visual impact took place. I challenge anyone here to tell me that they have seen my house from anywhere as far West as Taft Hill Road. It is difficult to see my house until you are about one—half mile East of Overland TRail and my house is about on the 5200 foot contour and my house is the most visual of the three built. This gives you some ideafof the type of rhetoric and untruths we were being overwhelmed with. In my opion, it is hardly what you should expect froip a governmental agency. Another factor in this Foothills Poly is the fact that it was totally ignored that the Foothills did not start until you had gone over one—half mile West of Overland Trail and above the 5200 foot contour. Nearly all of the ground East of the 5200 foot contour is irrigated', marginal farm ground. It boggles my mind when the City indicates that it is fine to develop South and Southeast into the Harmony area,'which is probably some of the best farm gourd in Colorado, and then try to preserve this ground West of the City that is primarily Poor farm ground&fair pasture. The only conclusion I can arrive at is, 'If you have enough money and business clout, you can go where you want to.' I can't help but believe that a Court might agree with me. In regards to the attached City proposal identified as FOOTHILLS POLICY, dated October 26, 1981: I have made some notations on this copy that I feel are worthy special attention: It would appear to me that this is an attempt in Alternative L, to tell us that what they really would like is for us to wait perhaps another 10 or 20 years and marbe the City would purchase it. I have already waited over 10 years. This is grossly unfair. They pay no taxes, no upkeep, and make no promises, but they tell us to be patient, they might eventually do something. This is not taxation without renresenta+.;n;+ Now Alternative II. The the Foothills because the that what we are talking except permission. They psychological separation. where that affects us at psychological separation. West side of Overland T give some one a trauma. y appear to be against a new development node for a#ea is undeveloped. Well of course it is. Isn't about. We have all we need to developethe area further talk about maintaining physical and Does that mean for Free, and I can't see all. Incidentally what is meant by physical and Is this just more rhetoric. Is:,'house on the rail as opposed to a house on the East side going Much of this seems to be a play on words. Alternative III. They state that there is no demonstrated need to expand the Urban Growth Area. Have we evolved to the point that the plagni.ng board shall dictate who and when the development shall take place. I£ we have delegated that type of authority to the planning board, we will have taken a big step away from democracy, and embedded another layer of beauracracy that, in my opinion, would ultimately be devastating to the building business. Aside from high interest rates, this,;precisely part of what is wrong with the building industry today and it is recognized nation wide. Again in Alternative III we have the rhetoric of detrimental physical and psychological impacts. I really think this play on worts is unworthy of the planning and zoning board, or maybe they can tell us who the psychiatrist was. In summation: I believe it would be best to totally scrap the so-called Foothills Policy and allow the West side of FT. Collins to grow like any other side. If sewer and water and power can be supplied to the 5200 foot contour, that should be where the growth should be allowed to ga. This would have no visual impact, no unusuallpollution impact and I'm sure the houses will not fall down providing they have proper soils tests and building inspections, which Vm sure Mr. Waldo shall require anyhow. As far as we are concerned personally, we would prefer to be left in the County and allowed to build on the basis of one dwelling per 2.29 acres minimum. Over ten years.hassle with the City over this is More than enough for me 44V 0104& Alvin L. Miller 4017 Spruce Dr. Ft. Collins, Colo.